CHAPTER XV.

NEHEMIAH THE PATRIOT.

Nehemiah i. 1-3.

The Book of Nehemiah is the last part of the
chronicler's narrative. Although it was not
originally a separate work, we can easily see why the
editor, who broke up the original volume into distinct
books, divided it just where he did. An interval of
twelve or thirteen years comes between Ezra's reformation
and the events recorded in the opening of "Nehemiah."
Still a much longer period was passed over in
silence in the middle of "Ezra."126126 At Ezra vii. 1. A more important
reason for the division of the narrative may be found
in the introduction of a new character. The book
which now bears his name is largely devoted to the
actions of Nehemiah; and it commences with an autobiographical
narrative, which occupies the first six
chapters and part of the seventh.

Nehemiah plunges suddenly into his story, without
giving us any hints of his previous history. His
father, Hacaliah, is only a name to us. It was necessary
to state this name in order to distinguish the
writer from other men named Nehemiah.127127E.g., the Nehemiah of Ezra ii. 2, who is certainly another person. There is164
no reason to think that his privileged position at court
indicates high family connections. The conjecture of
Ewald that he owed his important and lucrative office
to his personal beauty and youthful attractions is
enough to account for it. His appointment to the
office formerly held by Zerubbabel is no proof that he
belonged to the Jewish royal family. At the despotic
Persian court the king's kindness towards a favourite
servant would override all claims of princely rank.
Besides, it is most improbable that we should have no
hint of the Davidic descent if this had been one ground
of the appointment. Eusebius and Jerome both
describe Nehemiah as of the tribe of Judah. Jerome
is notoriously inaccurate; Eusebius is a cautious historian,
but it is not likely that in his late age—as long
after Nehemiah as our age is after Thomas à Becket—he
could have any trustworthy evidence beyond that of
the Scriptures. The statement that the city of Jerusalem
was the place of the sepulchres of his ancestors128128Neh. ii. 3. lends
some plausibility to the suggestion that Nehemiah
belonged to the tribe of Judah. With this we must be
content.

It is more to the point to notice that, like Ezra, the
younger man, whose practical energy and high authority
were to further the reforms of the somewhat doctrinaire
scribe, was a Jew of the exile. Once more it is in the
East, far away from Jerusalem, that the impulse is found
for furthering the cause of the Jews. Thus we are
again reminded that wave after wave sweeps up from
the Babylonian plains to give life and strength to the
religious and civic restoration.

The peculiar circumstances of Nehemiah deepen our165
interest in his patriotic and religious work. In his
case it was not the hardships of captivity that fostered
the aspirations of the spiritual life, for he was in a
position of personal ease and prosperity. We can
scarcely think of a lot less likely to encourage the principles
of patriotism and religion than that of a favourite
upper servant in a foreign, heathen court. The office
held by Nehemiah was not one of political rank. He
was a palace slave, not a minister of state like Joseph
or Daniel. But among the household servants he
would take a high position. The cup-bearers had a
special privilege of admission to the august presence
of their sovereign in his most private seclusion. The
king's life was in their hands; and the wealthy enemies
of a despotic sovereign would be ready enough to bribe
them to poison the king, if only they proved to be corruptible.
The requirement that they should first pour
some wine into their own hands, and drink the sample
before the King, is an indication that fear of treachery
haunted the mind of an Oriental monarch, as it does the
mind of a Russian czar to-day. Even with this rough
safeguard it was necessary to select men who could
be relied upon. Thus the cup-bearers would become
"favourites." At all events, it is plain that Nehemiah
was regarded with peculiar favour by the king he
served. No doubt he was a faithful servant, and his
fidelity in his position of trust at court was a guarantee
of similar fidelity in a more responsible and far more
trying office.

Nehemiah opens his story by telling us that he was
in "the palace,"129129Neh. i. 1. or rather "the fortress," at Susa, the
winter abode of the Persian monarchs—an Elamite city,166
the stupendous remains of which astonish the traveller
in the present day—eighty miles east of the Tigris and
within sight of the Bakhtiyari Mountains. Here was
the great nail of audience, the counterpart of another
at Persepolis. These two were perhaps the largest
rooms in the ancient world next to that at Karnak.
Thirty-six fluted columns, distributed as six rows
of six columns each, slender and widely spaced,
supported a roof extending two hundred feet each
way. The month Chislev, in which the occurrence
Nehemiah proceeds to relate happened, corresponds to
parts of our November and December. The name is an
Assyrian and Babylonian one, and so are all the names
of the months used by the Jews. Further, Nehemiah
speaks of what he here narrates as happening in the
twentieth year of Artaxerxes, and in the next chapter
he mentions a subsequent event as occurring in the
month Nisan130130Neh. ii. 1. in the same year. This shows that he
did not reckon the year to begin at Nisan, as the Jews
were accustomed to reckon it. He must have followed
the general Asiatic custom, which begins the year in
the autumn, or else he must have regulated his dates
according to the time of the king's accession. In either
case we see how thoroughly un-Jewish the setting of
his narrative is—unless a third explanation is adopted,
viz., that the Jewish year, beginning in the spring, only
counts from the adoption of Ezra's edition of The Law.
Be this as it may, other indications of Orientalism,
derived from his court surroundings, will attract our
attention in our consideration of his language later on.
No writer of the Bible reflects the influence of alien
culture more clearly than Nehemiah. Outwardly, he is167
the most foreign Jew we meet with in Scripture. Yet
in his and character he is the very ideal of a Jewish
patriot. His patriotism shines all the more splendidly
because it bursts out of a foreign environment. Thus
Nehemiah shows how little his dialect and the manners
he exhibits can be taken as the gauge of a man's true
life.

Nehemiah states that, while he was thus at Susa, in
winter residence with the court, one of his brethren,
named Hanani, together with certain men of Judah,
came to him.131131Neh. i. 2. The language here used will admit of
our regarding Hanani as only a more or less distant
relative of the cup-bearer; but a later reference to him
at Jerusalem as "my brother Hanani"132132Neh. vii. 2. shows that his
own brother is meant.

Josephus has an especially graphic account of the
incident. We have no means of discovering whether
he drew it from an authentic source, but its picturesqueness
may justify the insertion of it here: "Now there
was one of those Jews who had been carried captive,
who was cup-bearer to King Xerxes; his name was
Nehemiah. As this man was walking before Susa,
the metropolis of the Persians, he heard some strangers
that were entering the city, after a long journey, speaking
to one another in the Hebrew tongue; so he went
to them and asked from whence they came; and when
their answer was, that they came from Judæa, he began
to inquire of them again in what state the multitude
was, and in what condition Jerusalem was: and when
they replied that they were in a bad state, for that
their walls were thrown down to the ground, and that
the neighbouring nations did a great deal of mischief168
to the Jews, while in the day-time they over-ran the
country and pillaged it, and in the night did them mischief,
insomuch that not a few were led away captive
out of the country, and out of Jerusalem itself, and that
the roads were in the day-time found full of dead men.
Hereupon Nehemiah shed tears, out of commiseration
of the calamities of his countrymen; and, looking up to
heaven, he said, 'How long, O Lord, wilt thou overlook
our nation, while it suffers so great miseries, and while
we are made the prey and the spoil of all men?' And
while he staid at the gate, and lamented thus, one told
him that the king was going to sit down to supper; so
he made haste, and went as he was, without washing
himself, to minister to the king in his office of
cup-bearer," etc.133133 Josephus, Ant., XI. v. 6.

Evidently Nehemiah was expressly sought out. His
influence would naturally be valued. There was a
large Jewish community at Susa, and Nehemiah must
have enjoyed a good reputation among his people;
otherwise it would have been vain for the travellers to
obtain an interview with him. The eyes of these Jews
were turned to the royal servant as the fellow-countryman
of greatest influence at court. But Nehemiah
anticipated their message and relieved them of all
difficulty by questioning them about the city of their
fathers. Jerusalem was hundreds of miles away across
the desert; no regular methods of communication kept
the Babylonian colony informed of the condition of the
advance guard at the ancient capital; therefore scraps
of news brought by chance travellers were eagerly
devoured by those who were anxious for the rare
information. Plainly Nehemiah shared this anxiety.169
His question was quite spontaneous, and it suggests that
amid the distractions of his court life his thoughts had
often reverted to the ancient home of his people. If
he had not been truly patriotic, he could have used
some device, which his palace experience would have
readily suggested, so as to divert the course of this
conversation with a group of simple men from the
country, and keep the painful subject in the background.
He must have seen clearly that for one in his
position of influence to make inquiries about a poor
and distressed community was to raise expectations of
assistance. But his questions were earnest and eager,
because his interest was genuine.

The answers to Nehemiah's inquiries struck him
with surprise as well as grief. The shock with which
he received them reminds us of Ezra's startled horror
when the lax practices of the Jewish leaders were
reported to him, although the trained court official did
not display the abandonment of emotion which was
seen in the student suddenly plunged into the vortex of
public life and unprepared for one of those dread surprises
which men of the world drill themselves to face
with comparative calmness.

We must now examine the news that surprised and
distressed Nehemiah. His brother and the other
travellers from Jerusalem inform him that the descendants
of the returned captives, the residents of Jerusalem,
"are in great affliction and reproach"; and also that
the city walls have been broken down and the gates
burnt. The description of the defenceless and dishonoured
state of the city is what most strikes Nehemiah.
Now the question is to what calamities does this report
refer? According to the usual understanding, it is a
description of the state of Jerusalem which resulted170
from the sieges of Nebuchadnezzar. But there are
serious difficulties in the way of this view. Nehemiah
must have known all about the tremendous events, one
of the results of which was seen in the very existence
of the Jewish colony of which he was a member. The
inevitable consequences of that notorious disaster could
not have come before him unexpectedly and as startling
news. Besides, the present distress of the inhabitants
is closely associated with the account of the ruin of the
defences, and is even mentioned first. Is it possible
that one sentence should include what was happening
now, and what took place a century earner, in a
single picture of the city's misery? The language
seems to point to the action of breaking through me
walls rather than to such a general demolition of them
as took place when the whole city was razed to the
ground by the Babylonian invaders. Lastly, the action
of Nehemiah cannot be accounted for on this hypothesis.
He is plunged into grief by the dreadful news, and at
first he can only mourn and fast and pray. But before
long, as soon as he obtains permission from his royal
master, he sets out for Jerusalem, and there his first
great work is to restore the ruined walls. The connection
of events shows that it is the information
brought to him by Hanani and the other Jews from
Jerusalem that rouses him to proceed to the city. All
this points to some very recent troubles, which were
previously unknown to Nehemiah. Can we find any
indication of those troubles elsewhere?

The opening scene in the patriotic career of Nehemiah
exactly fit in with the events which came under our
consideration in the previous chapter. There we saw
that the opposition to the Jews which is recorded as
early as Ezra iv., but attributed to the reign of an171
"Artaxerxes," must have been carried into effect under
Artaxerxes Longimanus—Nehemiah's master. This
must have been subsequent to the mission of Ezra in
the seventh year of Artaxerxes, as Ezra makes no
mention of its distressful consequences. The news
reached Nehemiah in the twentieth year of the same
reign. Therefore the mischief must have been wrought
some time during the intervening thirteen years. We
have no history of that period. But the glimpse of its
most gloomy experiences afforded by the detached paragraph
in Ezra iv. exactly fits in with the description of
the resulting condition of Jerusalem in the Book of
Nehemiah. This will fully account for Nehemiah's
surprise and grief; it will also throw a flood of light on
his character and subsequent action. If he had only
been roused to repair the ravages of the old Babylonian
invasions, there would have been nothing very courageous
in his undertaking. Babylon itself had been overthrown,
and the enemy of Babylon was now in power.
Anything tending to obliterate the destructive glory of
the old fallen empire might be accepted with favour by
the Persian ruler. But the case is quite altered when
we think of the more recent events. The very work
Nehemiah was to undertake had been attempted but
a few years before, and it had failed miserably. The
rebuilding of the walls had then excited the jealousy of
neighbouring peoples, and their gross misrepresentations
had resulted in an official prohibition of the work. This
prohibition, however, had only been executed by acts
of violence, sanctioned by the government. Worse
than all else, it was from the very Artaxerxes whom
Nehemiah served that the sanction had been obtained.
He was an easy-going sovereign, readily accessible to
the advice of his ministers; in the earlier part of his172
reign he showed remarkable favour towards the Jews,
when he equipped and despatched Ezra on his great
expedition, and it is likely enough that in the pressure
of his multitudinous affairs the King would soon forgot
his unfavourable despatch. Nevertheless he was an
absolute monarch, and the lives of his subjects were in his
hands. For a personal attendant of such a sovereign
to show sympathy with a city that had come under
his disapproval was a very risky thing. Nehemiah
may have felt this while he was hiding his grief from
Artaxerxes. But if so, his frank confession at the first
opportunity reflects all the more credit on his patriotism
and the courage with which he supported it.

Patriotism is the most prominent principle in
Nehemiah's conduct. Deeper considerations emerge
later, especially after he has come under the influence
of an enthusiastic religious teacher in the person of
Ezra. But at first it is the city of his fathers that
moves his heart. He is particularly distressed at its
desolate condition, because the burial-place of is
ancestors is there. The great anxiety of the Jews
about the bodies of their dead, and their horror of
the exposure of a corpse, made them look with peculiar
concern on the tombs of their people. In sharing the
sentiments that spring out of the habits of his people
in this respect, Nehemiah gives a specific turn to his
patriotism. He longs to guard and honour the last
resting-place of his people; he would hear of any
outrage on the city where their sepulchres are with the
greatest distress. Thus filial piety mingles with patriotism,
and the patriotism itself is localised, like that of
the Greeks, and directed to the interests of a single
city. Nehemiah here represents a different attitude
from that of Mordecai. It is not the Jew that he173
thinks of in the first instance, but Jerusalem; and
Jerusalem is dear to him primarily, not because of his
kinsmen who are living there, but because it is the city
of his fathers' sepulchres, the city of the great past.
Still the strongest feelings are always personal.
Patriotism loves the very soil of the fatherland; but
the depth and strength of the passion spring from
association with an affection for the people that inhabit
it. Without this patriotism degenerates into a flimsy
sentiment. At Jerusalem Nehemiah develops a deep
personal interest in the citizens. Even on the Susa
acropolis, where the very names of these people are
unknown to him, the thought of his ancestry gives a
sanctity to the far-off city. Such a thought is enlarging
and purifying. It lifts a man out of petty personal
concerns; it gives him unselfish sympathies; it prepares
demands for sacrifice and service. Thus, while
the mock patriotism which cares only for glory and
national aggrandisement is nothing but a vulgar product
of enlarged selfishness, the true patriotism that awakens
large human sympathies is profoundly unselfish, and
shows itself to be a part of the very religion of a
devoted man.